Articles, news & legal alerts

Read the latest news from Scali Rasmussen, including legal alerts and event listings.

Published on

In California, employees are entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees if they prevail on claims against employers alleging violations of the Labor Code. In the recent Court of Appeal opinion in Gramajo v. Joe’s Pizza, a California Court of Appeal was faced with the issue of whether to award excessive attorney’s fees to an employee even though the amount of the verdict was nominal. As shown below, the Court of Appeal sent a message across the bow that excessive attorney’s fees may be recoverable irrespective of the amount of damages.

Published on

As most car dealers are aware , offers made pursuant to California Civil Procedure Section (“CCP”) 998 can be a useful tool to reign in the cost of settling consumer litigation. Section 998 is a cost-shifting statute designed “to encourage the settlement of litigation without trial, by punishing the party who fails to accept a reasonable settlement offer from its opponent.”

Published on

Have you or someone you know had an interest in real property on which there was a cloud on title – perhaps a competing claim of ownership or other rights to the property? Do you know of someone who bought real property only to learn that the property had been subject to a title dispute in the past? This article will explain the remedy of “Quiet Title” to resolve title disputes, and it will explain what happens to any subsequent purchaser’s rights – particularly in those instances when the Quiet Title judgement is reversed or set aside. The interesting case study included at the end of the article, if you chose to read it also, is a cautionary tale for those individuals caught up in quiet title situations.

Published on

The California Legislature enacted Civil Code Section 1952.7 to promote the installation of electric vehicle charging stations. Importantly, while commercial lessors are not required to install or maintain EV stations in California, the law prevents them from hindering lessees who wish to do so.

Published on

On April 23, 2024, the FTC announced its Final Non-Compete Clause Rule (“Final Rule”), which bans post-employment non-compete clauses between employers and their workers.

Published on

Employers widely recognize that the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) imposes an affirmative duty on employers to make a reasonable accommodation for the known disability of an employee or applicant unless doing so would impose undue hardship to the employer's operations. California Government Code 12026(m). Determining the nature of the accommodation is a case-by-case process that requires individualized review based on the employee’s limitations and the nature of the employee’s essential duties. This can be a daunting task for employers, and diligent employers, who are accustomed to bearing the administrative and compliance burdens of fulfilling their EEO obligations, may be inclined to take decisive and unilateral action in response to receiving notice of an employee’s need for an accommodation.

Published on

The Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) has been a point of contention between the United States Federal Government and small businesses, evidenced by the lawsuit brought by the National Small Business Association (“NSBA”) on behalf of its members. While the Northern District of Alabama recently prohibited the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) from enforcing the CTA against the NSBA’s members, the court’s order does not appear to apply to non-NSBA members and the US Department of Justice has signaled its intent to appeal the decision. Thus, despite these new developments on the enforcement of the CTA, it is critical that dealers comply with the requirements of the CTA.

Published on

California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”) is the agency responsible for regulating Proposition. In October of 2023, OEHHA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, proposing amendments to existing sections of the safe harbor warning regulations for consumer product exposures.

Published on

There have been several developments in 2024 pertaining to California’s privacy laws. Specifically, the California Privacy Protection Agency (“CPPA”) – the agency that enforces the CPRA - won the battle in an important court case that allows it to begin immediate enforcement of its revised CPRA regulations. In addition, the California Attorney General’s office (“AG”) announced its second-ever enforcement decision under the CPRA and further advised that it would continue with its enforcement “sweeps.”

Published on

At Scali Rasmussen, we are committed to our employee’s total wellness, and we believe mental health, is health.

Pages